There are currently numerous “wet” suits worn by water sports enthusiasts. Some are made of elastic materials like nylon to reduce the body's natural “drag” against the water, such as used by Olympic swimmers. Others are made of elastic materials like nylon by surfers for the purpose of providing a thin level of rash protection from contact with the surfing equipment. Some are made from insulating materials like neoprene which provide thermal insulation for those participating in colder waters.
In order for these garments to work effectively, they must stretch and cling to the wearer. In order for these garments to be desired by enthusiasts (and actually be worn) they must allow for a high level of mobility, which again requires a high level of stretch and elasticity.
Current wetsuits do provide for simple rash protection or thermal insulation, but are not designed to resist puncture, cutting, or tearing, such as may be received from impacts with sharp rocks or reefs, or from shark bites. Many fatalities from shark bites result not from blunt force trauma or drowning induced by the shark, but rather from the deep puncture and cutting of tissue from the shark's razor sharp teeth. Some dive shops do offer chain mail garments designed to be worn over wetsuits or rash guards. These garments function when engaged in slow deliberate movements like SCUBA diving. However, these suits are too oversized, bulky, heavy, and burdensome for those participating in vigorous water sports like swimming or surfing.
So, manufacturers of wet suits for vigorous water sports have long sought a means to effectively protect the wearer from cutting, puncture, and tearing in a garment that remains highly elastic and form fitting.
There are essentially four “groups” of related art that should be discussed in detail. The first group of references is related to wet suits or thermal suits for diving, which do not significantly protect the wearer from cutting or puncture. The second group of references is related to suits or materials with small rigid elements or platelets designed for protection from fire, knife stabbing, or high velocity punctures (such as bullets). These materials are generally not designed to expand and contract, as such a property would be deleterious to their intended use (by allowing gaps between individual platelets to form during expansion of the base material, which may defeat the protection altogether). The third group is references contain materials designed primarily for the medical profession, in the form of gloves and various materials, to prevent accidental needle sticks and scalpel cuts. These materials are generally not intended for full suits or for vigorous water activities. The fourth group of references is related to suits or materials specifically for shark bite protection, with materials ranging from chain mail to spiked outfits. All of the groups of referenced related art have serious limitations for use, which explains why they are not used by water sports enthusiasts currently.
Group one depicts thermal protection suits that do not possess significant cutting or puncture resistance. U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,749,551 and 2,981,954, issued to Garbellano, depict such underwater thermal suits. Garbellano's suits are designed primarily for thermal insulation, and do not possess significant cutting or tearing resistance other than that afforded by the neoprene and fabric itself. U.S. Pat. No. 4,710,978, issued to Pankopf, discloses a protective garment for water activities. The suit is designed for ease of wearing, not to protect against biting or cutting. U.S. Pat. No. 6,519,774, issued to Mitchell, discloses a scuba wet suit with constant buoyancy. It includes a plurality of rigid-wall containers, supported by at least one support layer, which are designed to provide insulation and buoyancy. These containers, and their support layer(s), do not provide protection against shark bites or reefs. U.S. Pat. No. 5,660,572, issued to Buck, discloses a floatation fabric and life preserver made therefrom. The floatation fabric is composed of two opposed layers of water-permeable, flexible, woven or knitted material. Sandwiched between the layers are small particles, pellets or beats of closed cell foam plastic material, which give the fabric its buoyancy. Buck's patent is designed for floatation, not for shark attack prevention.
Group two depicts suits or materials designed for knife stabbing or high velocity bullet protection. U.S. Pat. No. 3,398,406, issued to Waterbury, is designed to be buoyant and to repel bullets. The material from which to construct the suit, however, is not well-defined (cellular plastic with submicron metallic particles at the molecular level), and the suit would appear to have limited flexibility and expansive characteristics due to a base of semi-rigid plastic. U.S. Pat. No. 2,819,759, issued to Goodloe; U.S. Pat. No. 3,813,281, issued to Burgess, et al; and U.S. Pat. No. 5,515,541, issued to Sacks and Jones, suggest plates affixed to a flexible, yet preferably non-elastic base. The non-elastic nature of the base material provides for flexibility but eliminates the clinging elastic properties required for vigorous water sports. Finally, U.S. Pat. No. 5,511,241, issued to Zieglar, depicts a chain mail glove impregnated with neoprene. Infusing flexible metal with rubber renders the composite material substantially inflexible and inelastic, because the elastic neoprene material would bond to virtually all of the steel ring surfaces. All of these referenced suits or materials seem to possess a significant degree of flexibility, but lack a significant level of elasticity.
The third group features many designs of materials and garments designed to protect the skin, especially professionals in the medical field from accidental needle sticks or scalpel cuts. These materials are not generally intended for complete suits or for use in the water. The arrays of tiny platelets in U.S. Pat. No. 4,951,689, issued to Jones; U.S. Pat. No. 5,200,263, issued to Gould and Nichols; U.S. Pat. No. 5,368,930, issued to Samples; U.S. Pat. No. 5,601,895, issued to Cunningham; U.S. Pat. No. 5,953,751, issued to Kobren; and U.S. Pat. No. 6,519,774, issued to Kim, are small and smooth faced. Teeth from a shaking shark bite would likely slide over the smooth faced platelets and find their way in between them. The woven metals or woven aramid fibers of U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,779,290 and 4,833,733, issued to Welch and Dombrowski; U.S. Pat. No. 4,742,578, issued to Seid; and U.S. Pat. No. 5,070,540, issued to Bettcher and Bettcher, are flexible, but inelastic, and would prevent high degrees of elasticity and mobility required by water sports enthusiasts. U.S. Pat. No. 4,526,828, issued to Fogt, et al, discloses a protective, cut-resistant material for use in articles of apparel. Such material, however, would not guard against shark bites.
The final group discloses suits specifically designed for protection while engaged in water activities. U.S. Pat. No. 3,284,806, issued to Prasser, depicts a thermal rubber wetsuit with impregnated steel mesh or a plurality of “intermeshed” rings to form an “interlinked fabric.” This design is similar in limitations to Ziegler, wherein the infusing of flexible metal with rubber renders the composite material as substantially less flexible and inelastic. This is because the elastic neoprene material would bond to virtually all of the inelastic steel surfaces. U.S. Pat. No. 4,356,569, issued to Sullivan, suggests chain mail with large steel plates. This suit is limited by non-clinging or form-fitting steel chain mail, with plates of steel strapped to the outside. This entire arrangement would be very difficult to efficiently maneuver through the water. Further, this arrangement would be prohibitively expensive and cumbersome to manufacture in requiring tailoring to the many different sizes and shapes of people. U.S. Pat. No. 4,602,384, issued to Schneider, and U.S. Pat. No. 4,833,729, issued to Fox, both suggest elements on the outside of the suits (spikes or repulsive chemical sacs) to deter shark attacks. Due to gear entanglement issues and the outrageous appearance of the suits, neither product would likely be considered by someone involved in vigorous water sports. French Patent No. 2819151, issued to Daniel and Olivier, discloses a protective suit. It does not however solve critical issues whereby an extensive cross section of surface area is connected from protective elements to the elastic elements, which renders that same cross section of elastic material as inelastic, does not provide adequate protection when the elastic material is elongated, the protective elements are defined as non-deformable bands (i.e. rigid, which creates a much less flexible and pliable composite material) and finally the protective layers are externally exposed, which allows these layers to both snag on equipment and create significant water drag.
In conclusion, the present invention seeks to remedy the following several critical problems in the referenced patents:                (a) They attempt 100% solutions to a protection problem, providing so much protection that ultimate mobility and manufacturing costs are compromised. This results in garments that are not either not purchased or not worn.        (b) Some suits offer only thermal or rash protection, and offer little to no protection from cuts or punctures such as may be imposed by a shark bite or a sharp rock or reef.        (c) The referenced platelet designs have problems in that: 1) they are mounted to bases that are flexible but preferred as non elastic, which prevents both the clinging form fitting nature and high degrees of mobility and 2) they propose small, rigid, smooth faced individual plates, which would not prevent teeth in a shaking shark bite to slide in between platelets.        (d) The chainmail, chainmail and metal plate, neoprene infused chainmail, and steel mesh designs are limited in that they are 1) heavy, 2) expensive to manufacture, and 3) they do not allow free expansion and contraction (they are limited to the designed expansion of the interconnected metal elements of the chainmail or steel mesh). Currently available chainmail suits for water activities are manufactured oversized to allow donning and doffing. The excess material is bound up with additional straps and rubber bands (creating significant water drag). These suits are generally acceptable for slow deliberate movements like scuba diving, but impractical for vigorous sports like surfing or swimming.        (e) The spike and chemical sac suits both suffer from an expensive manufacture process, likely entanglements of other gear or equipment (like scuba gear), imposed difficulty in the wearer's movement (swimming, surfing, etc.), large amounts of drag when moving through the water, and an appearance that would discourage use by water sports enthusiasts.        